Why don't we attack states' rights more forcefully?

It's the problem, isn't it? And has been for a long time. History shows us that the reason minorities support Democrats is because they believe in the federal government. It was states rights that allowed the oppression of immigrants, Jews, blacks, gays, and so on. It's states rights that Ronald Reagan campaigned on when he launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, only known as the place where three civil rights workers were murdered. Now what happened in Arizona is states' rights run amok again. It always ends in disaster.

Not only that, especially with newspapers dying, no one really pays attention to the states. I think every state in the nation is terribly corrupt. There are so many patronage jobs, favors, local loyalties, and petty coverups. If they were subjected to the kind scrutiny the federal government is subjected to, every state government would collapse in shame. The fact is thanks to federal transparency laws and all the attention given the federal government, it has no choice but to be quite honest, even when we disagree with it. I think our system overall works great with big central government, and that's not only thanks to its employees, its thanks to the opposition parties, the media, the special interests groups, and everyone else who is keeping an eye on it.

I suppose we can't expect Obama to speak explicitly against the states, but I wonder why progressive groups don't speak up more on this issue.

gay marriage, drug laws, consumer protection, card check, etc. Some issues may not work (card check may just make corporations leave) but other issues are much more likely to get solved at state levels. Discounting state rights makes it easier for feds to ignore state laws that try to override fed laws (e.g. marijuana legalization, assisted suicide)

The ones screaming loudest for states' rights often happen to be the biggest racists and right wingers.

The smaller the pond, the more likely they can control it.

It's confusing.

Sometimes, people want states rights.
Other times, the same people don't.

"I think every state in the nation is terribly corrupt."

Well the Feds are certainly beyond corruption! lol

Centralization vs. De-Centralization. A new day for an old argument.

States do have a lot of rights, but federal law does supersede it.

The 10th Amendment applies to what isn't prescribed to the federal government in the Constitution. However, laws that are passed in accordance with the Constitution can extend the powers of the federal government to areas not enumerated in the Constitution. THe !0th Amendment covers less and less as time goes on, as it should.

Some people say the 10th Amendment means basically whatever laws are not in the Constitution are up to the states. I don't believe in the "Living Constitution", so I don't believe it gets "less and less as time goes on." It was put there for a reason.

Like legalizing civil unions and gay marriage, some environmental initiatives, and so on.

like the Federal Govt is not corrupt. Know how to tell when a politician is lying? Look for their lips moving

Look, just like the federal government, state governments have done both good and bad things. I'm not willing to throw over this country because of the issue of state's rights, it would be a really stupid move, one that would lead to civil war and worse.

I'm up for PA having some more states right, I'm sick of our common sense being diluted by the nonsense of others.

:crazy:

When the Fed is wrong, states' rights are just great.

Generally, I am for the decentralization of power. If all power is concentrated in D.C., well, just look at the Bush years. And I hate to tell you this, but the Federal government is also terribly corrupt, your naive assessment of its 'honesty' notwithstanding.

It goes above what the federal govt. is willing to do. Same thing with medical marijuana. The truth is, voting in local elections matters something more then the national elections do.